tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 25, 2014 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
protect these rocket launches. the use of civilians to protect military objectives is a direct violation of the geneva convention. look, this week, just this week we heard from a hamas spokesman. if there's any question about what's really happening here, we heard this statement. he said, we will keep tormenting the zionists and tell the last zionist leaves the soil of palestine, all of palestine, any column that is temporary, periodic column. we don't talk about a long-term peace agreement. column in the resistance dictionary meets preparation for the next war. the resistance will keep developing, manufacturing and stocking its arsenals with new surprising components for the next wars until the zionist enemy leaves our country, and all our land. that's the hamas spokesman. it's really simple, madam chairman. any responsible nation that
values human rights must condemn the people the actions of hamas and other terrorist groups. and the u.n. vote this week, take a look at the 29 countries who voted to focus on israel instead of the country that is launching rockets and launching air attacks. tell me about the concern that human rights, the cuba and venezuela have. as they voted for that resolution. madam chairman, i want to thank you for your commitment to bringing these forward, these bills forward in a bipartisan manner, and i hope that we have the opportunity as this bill goes further to further delve into what is a very simple and straightforward proposition. that if you believe in human rights, if you believe in democracy, then you must support israel's right to defend itself and you must condemn hamas. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. deutch.
now i'm pleased to recognize in the order of when they came in, mr. schneider of illinois. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair, and i am very proud to join today and strongly rise to speak in support of both h. con. res. 107, condemning hamas' use of human shields, and h. res 665, condemning the murder of the four young people last month. speaking first to the human shield. in the nine years since israel withdrew completely from gaza, evacuating 9000 israelis, hamas and other groups in gaza have launched overnight thousand rockets. this month alone over 2000 rockets intended to kill civilians and terrorize virtually every israeli city, town and village have been launched from gaza. thankfully israel develop with the support of the congress and
the american people the iron dome defense system, changing the calculus on the ground. israel is doing all they can to protect her citizens from hamas rockets. conversely, hamas is using the people of gaza to protect their rockets and rocket launchers. i fully support israel's right to defend her citizens come to do what is necessary to eliminate the threat of rockets at the threat of a terror tunnels dug under the ground into israeli territory. this resolution condemning the use of human shields clearly in violation of international humanitarian law is a strong statement that human shields cannot be used and israel must be allowed to defend herself. hamas is a terrorist organization. hamas must be prohibited from using rockets to terrorize israel come and human shields to defend those rockets. let me also speak to the resolution condemning the callous murder of use, whether it is boys named naftali
frenkel, gilad shaar, eyal yifrach or poisonings turned a bit the murder of mohammad, israel story quickly condemned the murder of the young man, arrested and are prosecuting the perpetrators. as i stood before, to murderers believed to have killed the three young israelis remain at large and too many people are unwilling to condemn the murder of mohammed abud khdeir. we stand together in support of the families here we stand, i stand in sport is a fight to defend herself and i'm proud to stand in support both of these resolutions. i yield back. >> thank you very much, mr. schneider. mr. chabot of ohio is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to express my support for both resolutions being considered this morning, h. res 665 condemning the murder of israeli and palestinian children, and the ongoing and escalate violence in the country, and h. con. res. 107
denouncing the use of civilians as human shields by hamas and other terrorist organizations in violation of international humanitarian law and i spent the want to express my strong support for israel's right to defend territory from attacks by the hamas terrorist. since the start of operation protective edge, a little more than two weeks ago, more than 2000 rockets have been launched against israel from gaza from syria, from lebanon and from the sinai endangering the lives of some 6 million israelis. yet if we listen to hamas spokesman, hamas apologist and news meet and in the anti-israel cobol of the u.n., we would be led to believe that israel has been the aggressor. meanwhile, hamas exposes its own people to danger by launching strikes from somebody neighborhoods near hospitals, near mosque, near schools. or even publish report earlier this week of hamas terrorists using indolence is as getaway
cars. this is a critical time in israel's history, and it's imperative we continue to stand beside a friend and ally. this subcommittee by acting on these resolutions today is sending a strong message i believe both to hamas and israel. i urge support of this resolution and i want to thank you, madam chairman, for ensuring that our message will be held. i yield back. >> ms. frankel of florida is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank my colleagues for bringing these resolutions and for the very eloquent remarks this morning. i support both resolutions. madam chair, this week the united nations found dozens of hamas rockets stored in two separate children's schools in gaza. these rockets are identical to the rockets that hamas uses to terrorize millions of israelis. this serves as a reminder of what we already know, it is
hamas that is responsible for the terrible loss of life both in israel and gaza. hamas embeds its weapons and launchers in schools, and houses, and mosques, and hospitals. while israel uses iron dome rockets to protect its citizens, hamas uses citizens to protect its rockets. as we watch the news and we see the heart wrenching images from gaza and israel, remember, it is -- i thank you, madam chair and i yield back. >> thank you. mr. cotton of arkansas is recognized. >> hamas must be destroyed. the gaza strip is run by a rat nest terrorist organization, has been four years. these terrorists have no regard for human life. they commit war crimes everyday by firing the rockets, missiles and mortars at israeli citizens which they cite that the home, a
mosque and hospitals and the churches of their civilians. they invade israel through tunnels which must also be destroyed because they're committing war crimes by wearing israeli uniforms. the israeli defense force is the most -- alongside the armed forces of the united states. rather than try to pressure israel in any way, the united states should be standing by israel along with so many other middle eastern governments in the efforts to destroy hamas. i'm proud to support these resolutions and i will reiterate that hamas must be destroyed. >> thank you, sir. mr. vargas of california is recognized. >> thank you very much thank you very much, madam chair. i want to thank you for bringing these resolutions forward, especially for the bipartisan nature. you can see we all agree on these issues. israel has the right in with a moral obligation to defend itself. it can't sit idle as missiles rain down on her citizens and so it is acted and it is acted in a
way not only to defend itself but attempt to protect innocent life on both sides. israeli soldiers have died in this process protecting civilians in the gaza strip. people should talk about that. this is a very moral force that is in gaza. the issues have gone out of their way not only leafleting but collect only people to get out of the house. hamas has said no, they're your chest, take those missiles on. hamas is perfectly -- purposefully put in these shields to put up the civilians who have died. so we have to stand strong with israel at this moment. we always should a very proud of the united states and the actions it took the united nations the other day. i'm very proud of our government, we have to continue to stand by israel in this moment. i also want to thank israel for not only capturing the murderers of the young palestinian who was
murdered, mohammed abud khdeir, 16 years old, but also indenting in the strongest way the murder of any person. in israel these people that murdered him were called terrorists and murderers as they should. yet the murderers that killed the three israeli teenagers are called heroes. that i think is the big difference. they haven't been captured. they haven't been condemned. instead they have been treated like heroes at the event allowed to run around and have been hidden by the palestinian authorities and others. so i want to thank again israel for not only condemning the murder of a 16 year old, but also showing its moral courage in going after them, the people who perpetrated the crime and say these are the guys and yes, they are part of our city and yes, they are murderers. i wish the palestinians would do
the same thing. you don't see that. so again thank you very much for bringing this forward, madam chair. i appreciate it very much and i appreciate the bipartisan nature. thank you. >> thank you very much. as always, leave the best for last, mr., from virginia. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you and the ranking member for bringing these two resolutions before us. today we consider those two resolutions, first h. res 665 which condemns the murder of israeli and palestinian children and escalate violence in israel. the deaths that mr. vargas just refer to touched home in my district, mohammed abud khdeir is the cousin of one of my prominent constituents, and that tragedy has touched our community, our palestinian committee, particularly in northern begin your very hard. i echo the sentiments mr. vargas, the sharp contrast between the fact that the israeli justice system is prosecuting and pursuing those who perpetrated that murder, it
is in sharp contrast to the out so lack of a justice system and lack of any even the simplest of adjudication and prosecution for the murder of three israeli young people, is for all the world to see. the sound of sirens in israeli cities warning of rockets overhead, images of the growing humanitarian crisis now in gaza should strengthen our resolve to end this conflict and to resume our pursuit for a more lasting peace initial and palestine. our lesson from the crisis in israel is violence against violence. hamas continues to indiscriminate fire rockets into israel threatening the lives of israeli citizens. just as any sovereign nation would, israel has taken measures to protect its civilians from harm by targeting hamas'
operations in gaza. unfortunately, the scene in gaza is not unfamiliar. a brutal terrorist organization with one disregard human life, embedded itself in the civilian population, and uses that civilian population as a shield. the result is a humanitarian crisis that worsens by the day. we should've it seems to me do all we can to arrest this endless cycle before more innocent lives are lost, and the gap only widens further. i commend secretary kerry for his commitment to the peace process. of trying to bring both sides to the negotiating table. it's in the best interest of the israelis, palestinians, and all those who seek regional stability for peace. hamas is now fired over 2000 rockets into israeli province since june. the rockets are poorly guided and hamas makes no distinct regarding its target. flights of israel were recently
disrupted when a rocket detonated near the airport. given the constant threat from above, israel has taken measures to mitigate risks to its civilian population. the iron dome system has had an 86% success rate in intercepting missiles destined for israeli population targets. consistent with our commitment to self-defense, we have provided 1 billion towards the development of that successful system. this doesn't include a 351 million that was included in the fy '15 national defense authorization act that passed the house in june. is ready defense forces have also launched operation protective edge sending ground troops into the gaza to disrupt hamas is rocket capability and to shut down tunnels that have been used by terrorist. because hamas has commingled its military operation as part of its strategy to every discovery
and engagement by the idf, there've been civilian casualties, far too many come in gaza along with the worsening humanitarian crisis. the united nations agency send -- itself hamas rockets in a school next to a shelter for 3000 palestinian residents. civilians are caught in the crosshairs of this conflict, subjected to violence and cut off from resources and innocence from normal life. is with this in mind that of all of us will urge an expedited return to the negotiating table your for those who once criticized secretary kerry's a chance at reviving the peace process, what is the alternative? it is a region embroiled in misery. thank you again for your leadership, madam chairman and that of yours, mr. deutch, and i certainly look forward to voting on these resolutions today.
i yield back. >> hearing no further requests for recognition, the question occurs on adopting the items under consideration en bloc. all those in favor say aye. all opposed? in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the en bloc amendments are approved. without objection the items in the en bloc will be supported favorably to the full committee and house concurrent resolution 107 will be reported in the form of a single a minute in the nature of a substitute. the staff is direct you to make any technical and conforming changes. i want to thank all of the members and staff for their assistance and cooperation that winning today's markup. thank you for coming, and with that the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]
>> a bit of a short markup session on those two resolutions dealing with the israeli-palestinian conflict on this last day of legislative work for the week for the use house. houses in today. they have gaveled in for work as a matter of fact. today don't take up a resolution that would bar the president from the point of keeping u.s. armed forces in ongoing combat in iraq once he gets a third from congress. you also rapoport on a bill that deals with the thousand dollars child tax credit, also raising the threshold for the so-called marriage penalty and the house will take up a democratic motion to instruct conferees on the veterans health care bill passed the house and senate try to work out their differences on the. follow the house live over on c-span live now.
here on c-span2 we will take you live to the white house at 1 p.m. eastern but the president this afternoon will be meeting with the head, the presence of guatemala, honduras and el salvador about the ongoing problem of unaccompanied migrant children of the u.s.-mexico border. this will be ahead of a meeting 1 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> michele flournoy is our guest on this week's q&a. >> if you're in government you are dealing with the daily journey of the inbox. you're focused on the crisis of the day. part of my response does as undersecretary of defense was representing the second a defense of the so called deputies committee which is sort of a senior level group that's developing and working through the issues, developing options for the principles and the president, a lot of crisis management focus. when you're in a think tank your real utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issue of the day, but help
to do some work to raise their day, help them look over the horizon to see what are the issues i'm going to confront a year from now,-com,-com,-comma five years from now, 10 years from now and how to think more strategically about america's role in the world. >> former undersecretary of defense and cofounder of the center for national american security michele flournoy on the creation of cnas, its mission and current defense policy issues sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> forty years ago the watergate scandal led to the only resignatiresignati on of an american president. american history tv revisits 1974 and the final weeks of the nixon administration. this weekend as they consider cr impeachment operate under charged with abuse of power. >> which have are questions about what the framers had in mind, questions about whether the activities that have been found out by the committee and by the senate, watergate
committee, were indeed impeachable. and thirdly, can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate 40 years later, sunday night at eight eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> yesterday el salvador's foreign minister called on used to respect the rights of unaccompanied minors across the southern border illegally and for them to have the right to due process. 's comments came during a discussion at the wilson center in washington are also joined and was the foreign ministers of guatemala and honduras. this is just over one hour. >> check. good morning.
good morning, buenos dias. it's a pleasure of all of you here. special welcome hardest in which guest, foreign minister of funders, glad to have you. we will be joined in about two minutes by the other two foreign ministers. welcome to the ambassador of honduras and to his colleagues who will join us in a moment. [speaking in native tongue] today the wilson said is very pleased and him have a jane harman our president i'm pleased to host the three corners of guatemala, solider and honduras. they will have a meeting tomorrow with president obama. they we discussing the situation of young people have been migrating in unprecedented numbers in recent months from central america across mexico and into the united states. this situation is a human
tragedy and its of a significant and well-deserved concern in all of our countries. both push and pull factors are involved. there's on one hand the lure of a better life in the united states and if some cases come in many cases the opportunity to be reunited with family members who already lived. there's the desperation of persistent poverty and fear of personal safety because of high levels of violence in some of these committees that drive young people away and to undertake a several thousand mile trek northward. to be certain there are no simple solutions to this problem. in the short term and number of measures can be taken to dissuade young people for making a dangerous trek north. the governments of the three countries he represent as well as mexico and the training of our taken a number of these steps by the longer-term challenges that have to do with poverty and violence will require sustained effort. to invest in education, jobs, institutions, rule of law. and countries of origin. these are things that i would have to be done in each country and led by the governments and their society. but there's also since this an
issue that binds us together, there are opportunities to do things together across the region from central america and north america. our colleagues at the wilson center have been covering this issue extensively. chris wilson, speaking essentially about this, writing, ma testifying, thinking discussions with policymakers, civil society leaders and others. this is a strong commitment to central america, the u.s.-mexico border we focus on a great deal is one also migration is a major concern for many of us around the wilson center the a few months ago we did a report with the migration policy institute where we looked specifically at central america, the three countries are, honduras, guatemala, el salvador as with mexico and the united states and what we should be doing together in terms of managing migration and in terms of regional competitiveness. so we could both manage migration better but also begin to deal with some of the
long-term concerns. it was a report that came out that actually had people from all of the five countries involved, putting it together. i would commend it to you. we did this before the major flow started, before this became a news story, but there are some ideas thinking long-term competitiveness and our long-term security in the five countries and what binds us together and why we all benefit by working together that would be worth looking at. the wilson center's president jane harman is not with us today. should actually is at the aspen institute poll convening am co-chairing a group to the home hud secretary jeh johnson. she let me note earlier this morning that she spoke with a second or last i. one of the things he pointed out is the fact that migration flows are decreasing of young people, notably the foreigners has pointed this out as well from the numbers that they have reversing about 50% drop over the last few days. this is heartening. it's a sign that some things are
working. what this should allow us to do is focus on the root causes going forward. focusing on the root causes if something is in the interest not only of el salvador, guatemala and honduras but also the united states and mexico, and welcome to the foreign ministers of el salvador and guatemala. good to have your and could have the ambassadorship as well. the wilson center's latin american program are proud to be a trusted space where the issues can be discussed. i'm very pleased to turn this over to the director of the latin american program at the woodrow wilson center. [applause] >> andrew, thank you very much. welcome to everyone. thank you for your patience. thanks especially to the ambassador of el salvador, the ambassador of honduras and the three distinguished ministers.
andrew, as you've noticed the crisis of any company miners has given rise to a roiling debate in the united states, not only in the congress where there are very different opinions over how to respond, but also in the cities and towns across the united states dat had been askeo shoulder large numbers of children pending the review of the cases. for all the hardships that have been suffered by these young people and all the divisions you about how to respond, i see perhaps one very thin silver lining in this crisis, which is that it is focused renewed attention on the insecurity and lack of opportunity that affect millions in central america. in fact i can recall and there are some veterans of previous eras in u.s. relations with the region, i can recall no time since the central american wars of the 1980s when so much u.s. media and policy attention has been paid to the region.
we may have differing opinions on what is responsible for the surge in these minors, but there can be little dispute over the objective condition from which they. according to our own department of homeland security, and i quote, salvadoran and honduran children come from extremely violent regions where they probably perceive that the risk of traveling alone to the u.s. is preferable to remaining at home. poverty levels in this so-called northern triangle of three countries have gone down since the 1990s, but is still the case that approximately 45% of salvadorans, 55% of guatemalans, and 67% of hondurans are poor. there is no magic bullet to address these problems. they have taken decades, if not centuries, to devote. but progress is possible with the right leadership, sufficient resources, active civic participation and adherence to the principles of transparency
and accountability. a critical ingredient for policies to be successful is political will and leadership from the region itself. indeed, i believe a long-term solution depends not only on what the u.s. government is prepared to commit over the long-term, but also what responsibly central american actors in and out of government are willing to assume to transform their own country. but i'm optimistic central americans came together with the support of the international committee to end the practice cyber wars two decades ago, a similar effort i believe can be made to convert this current crisis into an opportunity for building more inclusive and democratic societies. i would like to thank associate director of the american program eric olson, assistant, and a half of the entrants in this building for all of the assistance in putting the event
today together i would like to turn the program over to the distinguished host of morning edition from national public radio, steve inskeep, whose voice dominates the morning routines in the homes and commutes of so many of us. steve, it is an honor to have your as it is an honor for us to host these three distinguished foreign ministers. >> thank you. mucho gracias. good remarks. [applause] ..
thank you so much. i think this is -- can i speak in spanish? >> translator: i'm going to speak in spanish. it's more comfortable for me. i think this question, however important it may be it doesn't get to the point. this isn't a matter of finding guilty parties were finger-pointing, it rather is a matter of us to share our responsibility. we have been speaking from the standpoint of citizens
challenges and we have this responsibility that has a shared one that has differentiated. that is in the case of drug trafficking we have to look at the standpoint of producing countries on the one hand and consuming countries. from that standpoint our belief is and i will speak only to honduras that the lack of opportunity and the violence in the social exclusion that we have seen the last couple of years isn't only the responsibility but this is a problem that is all encompassing
and ties into the tragedy that has led us to the situation of the war in the territory about having been the ones to take the bulk of the hits and having a large conversation of the country and these can be separated. we organize the transnational crime and i'm talking about certain difficulties which without a doubt are not tied to the issue of migration, the exploitation, labor exploitation, but the relation in the case of thunderous as the organized crime in those cities
from which the large flow of migrants come so that's why it is a strike eight patient to talk about the security to the principle of certain sharing. we have seen over the last couple of months this flow of unaccompanied emigrants. >> you can speak in any language you would like and it will be translated. that will be outstanding and reached the number of peoples of the foreign minister has talked about code responsibility that
multiple countries are responsible. >> translator: i apologize for not speaking in english. english. i will be speaking in spanish. if we take a cold hard look at the numbers we have some concrete causes that result in the juncture and this isn't something that goes back to 35, 45 years ago although in the last couple of years now you have on the one hand who convinced the families of the children that at this point in
time it was giving the current flow in the unitelaw in the uniy wouldn't be allowed to stay and that believed promise. now it would seem like there was all of this migration of children. 400,000 new are born so you have 6.5 million, 18 years of age to 25,000 overall compared to 6.5 so this has two millions. refugees flooding out. a small percentage because that relates to the specific
phenomenon that leave the families into thinking we talk about the $2,500 at a cost to bring children and across the river. this is the last year of exponential growth the service has grown exponentially in many communities. now, that said this is a relatively small number compared to the overall group of children and it hasn't led to the wholesale displacement of the migration of central americans generally speaking.
over the last 50 years but rather in 2001 it stopped with the economic crisis in the united states and before that 150 every year. overall they come to the country every year and one and a half million that are here now, some are u.s. citizens already or have become u.s. citizens. we know that they are already citizens o so this has been a long-standing process. now from the 2001 to 2008 there was a surge and a number of
factors in the u.s. economy is very dynamic at the time and there was a demand for workers. now there is another important element behind the migration through the trouble )-close-paren that hits the country and others contribute to some of the communities that are the hardest hit. there's also the drop-off of the mexican immigrants into the u.s. and that have to pick up for the loss of business bringing in the central americans adding to the fact of the wage and that is also the sole factor now.
this cannot be attributed to one administration or policy. these are social phenomenon and an entire period of time that are still there. from 2008 and on. the immigration quote has been relatively slow compared to the earlier stage. >> ivy league u. r. telling me that there was less demand by mexicans to travel to the united states and the trafficking networks moved south and found more countries. that's what you're telling me. >> in 2008 a-alpha of th 2008 af children coming into the u.s. you had at least 17,000 in
mexico. by 2011 it was down to 11,000. when it reaches the low the next year is when you see the surge come. and this is a good business as i was describing. it's very profitable. those are very specific elements created for illegal smuggling of people. that explains many of the things. why do i use this explanation? we discussed it as a cluster of law enforcement. we understand how the markets work to find solutions for the
problems but to funnel the idea that this is a law-enforcement problem coming and we can only solve this as well as the drug war. >> how do you change the market for human beings? >> first is important you have to impact the networks. this is something we haven't done. we captured the smuggling networks to seven weeks ago. how much noise have you heard about? it's not important. how many people were captured? fourteen people. how many people in mexico? about 15. how many people in texas? forty-five. they were based in texas. so this is something
covetousness has been developed over years. with children you cannot truly get it. i think there is a limit for everything. maybe to say i can give you money and that is most likely an illegal contract that as an adult. we should stop the flow of children because that's type of business, this type of networks we create many for children ourselves. >> we have human smuggling the minister martinez. would you like to add? >> translator: we have always said that this migratory phenomenon has already been aired here by my colleague that there is another situation which
is there has been a lack of opportunity in these points of origin and education opportunities and also a lack of security so when we were talking with the vice president about this we said it isn't a matter of finding the guilty parties. they are also thinking about the long terms because the structural factors that lead to this migration. what are we already doing? we have been working in coordination together. for example the traffickers regarding the borders were
carefully that are engaged in the trafficking of persons to make parents aware of the risk sending their children off. putting in the hands of the same people as the networks. we can talk about some of the other things we have been doing to staunch the flow that we have made a proposal to the obama administration and other international bodies of the measures that need to be take to these could take him in the long term and these are deemed in the structural. these are measures that require an investment and resources in the countries of origin to
create entrepreneurialism, micro businesses such that people feel motivated to stay home and work where they lived with the second approach would be an education and technical training for young people. if we were to offer to children and teenagers good education and training to come into the labor market, that is going to spur them to not want to stay in the countries of origin. now we have been focusing that cities we are going to have to
intervene to law enforcement to strike out crying to those that have been victims now with the lack of the economic opportunities. but you also said something about needing to invest in security. is there a lack of government? know because the size of the transnational crime this is not something that can be tackled in isolation either by one country or one administration. the organized crime doesn't distract the laws and the orders and if we don't come together
when we talk about is if we don't break the cycle one thing ultimately impacts on other. it's not a snapshot of our country that shows and puts into stark relief of the probable that these are the also shows the responsibility needs to be taken by the transit and destination countries. so, we all have to work together to break this cycle because violence. it doesn't encourage investment
we have been working with the two large initiatives to create jobs and to attract the four indirect investment of it at the risk factor is so high as a result of the level of the violence how much of the government can we actually do to really attract investments and migrate jobs the first thing is to focus on containing violence to create a much safer environment command when i talk about security not just a citizen security but legal certainty so there is trust and estate institutions which are also undermined by the organized crimes. it is the corruption because
organized crime has had, has undermined the democratic institutions without a doubt. we accept that fact and that is why we are working on this, so yesterday there were some non- governmental organizations in honduras here who have fortunately decided to come on board to join the government of honduras from the standpoint of the society to engage in the processes let's say for purchasing medicines and healthcare and helping honduras with what it's doing and the international today's more cocaindoping and transparent administrations or governments so when we talk about violence. when we talk about the market
behavior. when we talk about the need that needs to be undertaken and the government, these are things that we cannot see in isolation of each other. we have to have a comprehensive or income to sing and pragmatic approach not only for us to take care of the immediate crisis at hand and the humanitarian emergency of unaccompanied children and adolescents but also have a longer-term. what is the u.s. responsibility here specifically? >> we could spend a long time talking about that. but i think there are two things that have already been mentioned here in my own words.
>> the fact that the u.s. traditionally deals with the issue of drug trafficking and drugs in the u.s. as a matter of public security that is unacceptable from the standpoint there has to be a different way of looking at this issue. when they were talking about how many people there are and who are engaged in the trafficking of the adults into the u.s. and how many of them are within the u.s. i remembered the second day as the finance minister of the foreign relations in the administration we had a meeting in panama about the issue of security and i started to
receive a lot of information about the cartel setting up shop in honduras. [speaking spanish] >> translator: and i had to ask how are the drugs distributed when they come to the u.s. because we are always talking about central america but we never talk about the huge drug consuming countries so what we believed traditionally with the blessing which was the fact it was the bridge between the north and the south and it has become our biggest tragedy as a result of the demand that is eager to receive and transported
through our territory. now 8% of drugs that come into the united states come through honduras so when there are a bunch of ties in the united states without the assistance of the united states lacks >> weasel this problem coming in 2011 and we made a call to the international community. we called for there to be a tragedy that would continue for the violent prevention crime and a strengthening the institutions and the law-enforcement approach these are different approaches and the timeframe of the funds that need $300 million that need to be invested at that point in
time, $3 billion. now, there were around amount pledged that are lower than the need and this is something that has to be financed in the community and only by the u.s.. what we are seeing is that there is a shared responsibility here. our countries are taking in the budgetary difficulties that we have two combat the enemy of such magnitude. the transnational organized crime research is unnecessary and also the structural phenomena needs to be attacked for the lack of opportunities in many of the communities there has to be tackled also.
we have to deal with those that are being exported in the crime and they are being told if you don't collaborate with us we will kill you and if you do collaborate we are going to have easy money to buy whatever you want for ourselves and on the other hand the children often times are excluded and they don't have the educational opportunities or the lever opportunities. so, what we have suggested to the u.s. and the international community is an alliance partnership for the prosperity of the countries which ultimately leads into the prosperity of the united states because we are interconnected and close with each other and therefore there has to be a common strategy that will help us solve the problem.
they are not based on the facts they are based on the perceptions. >> we don't know anything about the ideological. >> you are very much based on the scientific evidence. the government should be reflected. for example the rates should be going up and moderation should be going up. school coverage should be going down. the health sector reforms should be implemented and no reform for the judicial security taking place. everything is happening in
central america. everything. you see the threats going down over the last 20 years. the school coverage and partner coverage going up over the last 50 years. the rates going down in the last five years. the numbers are not supported. some good governance is taking place. and the major dollars of the countries are -- you nee need te you consult your problems. we are solving our problems. we have an $8 billion a year budget. almost everything that i need to do but providing complementary to that to the 300 million. so it is just a marginal part.
if we continue -- >> if it is affecting all of the forms in the united states it would be less than $200 million. >> but then the question is if we continue in this way, when are we going to achieve the goal for somehow affecting the migration from central america to the u.s. which is critical? the partner school coverage and the university. well, if we continue with our resources we will have the school coverage as universal in the next 15 years. if you provide it as funding it is a question of funding now. political decisions are there
and it is a traditional capacity. the problem is the second part but i think is important is it has been said a question about the tax paying in central america that has to go up particularly in guatemala. i cannot speak for the rest. but the taxpayer has to go up. they push for the fiscal reform in the beginning because the constitutional norms into the elements but they went the right way which is taxing the personal income. how much taxation provides the personal income? more or less the gdp which is nothing compared to the u.s. or to other countries but still, to present. 2%. the average in latin america is 4% and in guatemala we connect
0.7% of personal income tax. so a combination -- [inaudible] >> for anyone in the u.s. pushing for less taxation although i believe the levels of taxation are so low that even the strongly conservative americans would never support that. one day i took the tea party manifesto on the taxation and this was the reaction. they would be playing in the communism. we need to taxation. why do i see this? because it will depend on these two elements. the large contributions.
>> i have many more questions but i'm going to refrain myself because i can see the time is running out and we want to stay on the schedule. i would like to invite a few questions from the audience and i would ask to stand and state your name so we get to know each other a little bit and because time is short if you can ask a direct question at the guest and we will answer as we can. right here in the front. >> penny starr. i wonder if you could address more about border security in your country because especially they have to reach the border of your country to go through mexico to get to our border. so i wonder if you could address that for me. >> you are asking are they trying to keep people in?
>> i'm asking about their border security. >> anyone want to take that question? [speaking spanish] >> translator: the flow of unaccompanied minors doesn't really respond to the registers that we have in the official border points. the traffickers follow and it is the route that cities miners follow so many of these miners when they leave our country they leave the country here regularly. in the case of el salvador it is long determined that a minor cannot leave the country without a notarized permit by both parents if the parents are not accompanying the minor. so what we are doing at this
time is increasing the controls throughout the borders. these individuals as children are not looking through the regular points of exit, but they aren't reading it regularly so we have bring for us and we have strengthened the border so we do not have a regular flow of miners out of the country. as parents, we are peering down slow, we understand the feeling that a father or mother has in order to meet their children's needs but we would like to say to them it isn't worth it, it isn't worth risking the lives of your children. >> i think it is important again on the question of what we are doing and not what should we do
[inaudible] one is the agreement that we signed a few weeks ago in which are they willing to stay at least three days in mexico they can stay in mexico with no visa within the territory that is more or less 80 to one matters within mexico and the whole territory. that is if you want to go for tourism. you would be surprised. the largest wal-mart in mexico is and 50% of the consumers. that is one thing. after those 80, matters, the control gets strengthened. the idea is that everybody is identified. whoever doesn't have a card --
when you get into mexico. in that strength until it reaches where you will have three different levels of control and you may say they can go a round o around the control. it was so easy. you can because you want to go one by one if you want to. that will improve your chances of getting into the u.s. but that is only at the river because if you want to get the u.s. that is cheaper for everybody. you'd have to take the bus to get there. that's where 95% of the people
will go through. the same thing for guatemala where it's starting to create a the project of $350 million over thofillegal crosses from guatema to mexico with the same level of security and roadside. and that model is the security. the corporate engineers of mexico defined as path and we are going to have the same thing. it's quite expensive for the $35 million which is a lot of money for us but it's going to be worth in five years time we will already have that in place. >> i have a very quick comment in connection with the fact with what honduras in particular is doing. in the past few weeks, the president decided to work with
the director of migration and there were 16 blind spots that are crossing. they are not defined, they are blind spots. activities, a legal traffic activities were taking place and does have an affect on us and many of the groups have been taken to justice so something needs to be noted and that is something said before. it's a good idea to make a difference between regular migration from your regular migration. regular migration is a reality of the globalized world and no one can deny that. if we were to look at it from
this point there would be a contradiction. other countries have often pioneered and worked towards having the goods and services products moved quickly from one border to the next. one could say there's a contradiction because on the one hand and the globalized economic world we have the movement of goods and services but we have to stop the movement of people. how can we try to solve this? we have to look at migration alternatives, legal migration alternatives and regulated. the experience was has come out of this shows once again that the harder the migration
managers are in the u.s. the more sophisticated the legal traffic is going to become. the harder it is to meet an objective and the more expensive the trip is going to be and to the greater the risks and everything else will become interrelated. there are certain issues that come out of that we need to address. when we talk about resources we talked about the system in the usa and whetheu.s. and whether t or not efficient. on the one hand, honduras has frozen 35% of the funds or the security initiative because we
haven't certified that the efforts made by the government are sufficient in certain areas. so the question that we pose is or the funds ready or not ready? the funds are there and we are not very good with numbers like my colleague right here but my view is more humanitarian in nature apart from the figures. we have said we are talking about people and the children and families that are being broken and i think we need to be logical and we need to then think about these things. what have we gotten out of this
strengthening and hardening of the border issues? if they had decided to give 10% of what it has given to instead of hardening of the migration manager instead of doing that it would have supported the programs or activities in honduras would be different. >> my question is for the minister. many things have been heard and there can be campaigns for children. as a matter however if my child is into safe in my country i'm
going to run risks. many campaigns can be established but if you don't have a good campaign, then it's not going to work. we have a cancer here. i went to el salvador. you can close all the borders you want t want but we to but ws find a way to come to the state. what are the plans we have to combat the violence in the neighborhoods over their? thank you for your question. >> you talked about some of the measures already. we have focused where we have seen the largest number of gangs and the greatest violence and we've started with these municipalities. as you know we started just two months ago and we have
identified where we are going to intervene directly. and we have measures to find the gang members and drug traffickers but also we are going to implement measures to provide security and safety opportunities to young people. we are aware of the problem that you have put forth and we know the cost by individuals are coming to the united states. i would like to think you're looking at this from a unilateral key point when we are strengthening the border it has to do with how the criminal networks use these to move so they are also looking at the measures to invest in education so that people can have an opportunity and we are going to
invest in the project so they can have opportunities and if we go to the northern part, there was a technological institute and these young people have something else to look forward to. my first option i have a technical degree in the business and tourism and that is why we have implemented measures in the coastal area of the country that's going to allow us to provide opportunities to reach young people so i agree we have to intervene in those areas. >> we are looking behind to see if there is someone behind you.
please stand up so we can interfere with the television camera behind you. [laughter] >> i'm going to make my question in spanish. [speaking spanish] >> translator: you were having a meeting with mr. president obama and what do we expect, do you have questions you would like to pose specifically looking at what is happening in the u.s. congress where the congress is freezing the funds that are being asked and what is the possibility of success this meeting is going to have? >> i think like you said it is part of a sequence. it started with the visit of vice president biden. the countries were present and mexico was also at the meeting
and then we had a meeting with secretary kerry then quite a moller received secretary johnson from mexico so i think this is important because we have seen the events that have come one after another and they are very common ideas. first, which is important is to stop the needed flow of children. of course the most important point here is if we stop the flow of children it is a humanitarian measure to protect the children and it's important to understand. many people think if you stop the flow of children you are only trying to stop migration. that isn't the case. a legal groups are handling the groups of children in this arena and we cannot let that happen.
we need to stop this and it needs to be put clearly we are going to work with other states so we haven't taken immediate action that has to do with law enforcement but it also has to do with a medium and long-term action to provide youth in america with opportunities and help. the other issue that is important is this idea to establish patterns that will allow us to deal with migration issues in the medium term and in the long-term and this is going to be put in the agenda at the meeting with president biden. today we have had meetings as well and today we will get a meeting with a group of democratic legislators and then we are going to have a group with relative legislators and beef are going to be discussed
with the administration and executive branch of congress. congress and the executive branch are going to make the political decisions in order to respond to the situation that our position is the opening in order to try to find a -- >> there are so many questions here perhaps some of you will be able to answer a question but let me ask each of you is there a final thought with which you would like to leave the gathering at the people watching on the webcast? >> [speaking spanish] >> translator: in my opinion, the first thing that we need to remember is that there is a humanitarian story. there is a political background. there is a deadlock between the different chambers of congress and a bipartisan debate in the states. there are structural issues in
the country we can talk a lot about the cause and effect. we can talk about the specific situations and long-term solutions, but the important thing is we have to think that a part from the material elements we have to solve the issue is also a background that needs to exist and provide options. i don't think i'm going to start an ideological debate that we need to look at what we need to do from a correctly humane viewpoints or humanitarian viewpoint. specifically when it comes to the migrant miners in this case we are looking for to best
interest to do the right thing. it is a humanitarian story. >> [inaudible] [laughter] no, no. finish please. >> i just wanted to end by saying something that is very important, and it has to do with a narrative that we have in washington. it's very important because one cannot solve these problems if the government doesn't have the capability to. the three central american governments are meeting their promises and have a realistic set of objectives.
they don't have problems facing the institutional difficulties. we have political problems. but if we look at these things. the northern part of central america has a certain maturity with the responsibility and that's an important to solve these problems. it's for these children to have their rights respected and for them to be the subject of due process and have the possibility of going to the judicial instances that needed to be neee applied according to the u.s. legislation. i talked about the efforts that we are making back in the country that we want the u.s. to give that kind of support and
the second thing that we ask is for cooperation so that we can delve into the medium-term and long-term measures that can solve migration. the root causes of migration security is important and also economic opportunities are important for people back in their home countries. if these individuals haof thesee economic opportunities back in the day we always say that we want to migration to be an option and not an obligation. we want people not to be obligated to come here and migrate if we have people that have the basic conditions and then they wants to integrate that's fine. they have opted to emigrate so these items are important. [applause]
children moved to the white house today. president obama meets with the leaders of honduras, guatemala and el salvador. our cameras will be there in case any of the leaders make remarks following. it's set for 2 p.m. eastern. immigration policy certain to come up at the white house briefing. the spokesman is scheduled to be with reporters at 1 p.m. eastern and we will have that for you live on c-span2.
michel flournoy is our guest on this week q-and-a. >> if you were in government, you are dealing with the daily tyranny of the inbox. you are focused on the crisis of the day. part of my responsibilities was representing the secretary of defense on the so-called deputies committee, which is sort of the senior-level group of development working through the issues, developing options for the principles and the president. a lot of crisis management focus to read when you are in a think tank, your utility is not trying to second-guess the policymaker on the issues of the day, but helpinhoping to do some work toe their day and what are these issues i'm going to confront a year from now, five years from now?
how do i think more strategically about america's role in the world. >> under secretary of defense and cofounder for the center of national american security michelle flournoy on the creation and its mission and its current defense policy issues. sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span q-and-a. >> widt >> width of this year marking the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's declaration of the war on poverty, house budget committee chairman paul ryan unveiled a set of policies that would address poverty and economic mobility. mobility. mobility. chairman ryan's plan would consolidate up to 11 federal antipoverty programs into one funding stream for individual states. yesterday''s event, hosted by te american enterprise institute is an hour. >> good morning, ladies and
gentlemen. just going to ask you to take your seats, that the standing room only. i'm delighted to see that. i'm president of the american enterprise institute and honored to welcome you today and welcome the chairman of the house budget committee congress and paul ryan. congressman ryan has spoken many times and is a friend of aei and we are delighted to see his continuing willingness to tackle in portland and difficult issues and any others are not willing to confront. today he's here to talk about an issue that is near and dear to my heart and those are my colleagues here at aei expanding opportunity in america. he's particularly focused on low-income and vulnerable populations in the united states. one of the things that those of you that follow congressman ryan's career and pronouncements that it consistently is that he knows great leaders, patriots fight for everyone no matter how they vote. ..
i also look for to hearing from everybody. this will be a great event today. let's start with a principle we can all agree on. hard-working taxpayers deserve a break in this country. too many families are working harder and harder, yet they are falling further and further behind. that's just what's happening in america today. the cost of food, housing and energy and gas, they keep going up my paychecks have not budged. so whether you are a republican or democrat, let's all agree that america deserves better. what do we want? we want a healthy economy, and a big part of that is having a safety net that is strong, both for those who cannot help themselves and for those who need just a helping hand to get up and going in life. that's our goal. the problem is that's not what we're getting. though it's been not for a lack of trying, we spent $800 billion
each year on 92 programs at the federal level just to fight poverty. and yet we have the highest poverty rate in the generation. deep poverty is near record highs. when you take a look at all of this, you've got to think we can do better than this. now i don't have all the answers. far from it. nobody does. but the way i see it, we have an obligation to expand opportunity in america, to deliver real change, real solutions, real results. and to do that we need to stop listening to the loudest voices in the room and start listening to the smartest voices in the room. i have spent the last to traveling all over this country learning from people fighting poverty on the front lines. i've been to high school in milwaukee that's eliminated 14 games from the school grounds.
i've been to church in minneapolis that's helped hundreds of men get off drugs. i've been to homeless shelter in denver, a rehab center in san antonio. the point is there's a lot of good that is going on in this country. it's amazing. and since washington can't fight poverty alone, it is time to bring in reinforcements. so today i would like to start a conversation. i want to talk about how we can repair the safety net and help families get ahead. and the thing i want to talk about, in addition to that is a few ideas that so my colleagues in the house and senate have proposed, they put forward issues like income support, education, criminal justice, cutting down on red tape. each idea touches on a very different topic, but they all reinforce the same principle. if more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. my thinking is, listen to the boots on the ground, listen to the local leaders who are
actually changing the status quo, who are actually succeeding. let him try unique and innovative ideas with a proven track record, and then test the results. that's my guiding principle. and the first place to apply it is the safety net. today federal aid is fragmented and formulate. washington looks at each person's needs and isolation like food, housing or energy. it doesn't see how their needs interact. and what's worse, washington looks at each person in isolation. it doesn't see a people need to interact. the secret to our country success is collaboration. people working together, people learning together, people building together of our own free will. what government should do then is to encourage collaboration. bring people together, get them into the mix, empower them, don't oversee them. don't force them. what we need to do is to
coordinate assistance to families in need. get the public and the private sector working together. that's how we can smooth the transition from -- to success. the fact is each person's needs it into a coherent whole, a career, and each person fits into it coherent whole, a community. so it's -- if the public and private work together, we can offer a personal, customized form of a, one that recognizes both the need and the strength, both the problem and the potential. so i would start a pilot program called and opportunity grant. it would consolidate up to 11 for programs into one stream of funding of participating states. the idea would be let states tried to ways of providing aid and then test the results. in short, more flexibility in exchange for more accountability. my thinking basically is get rid
of these bureaucratic formulas and put the emphasis on results. participation would be voluntary. no state would be forced to join. we would not expand the program and tell all the was in. the point is you don't just pass them on to for the best. if you have an idea, let's try it. let's tested. see what works. don't make promise after promise. let's success built on success. here's how it would work. each state to want to proceed with my plan to the federal government. that plan will lay out in detail the states propose. if everything pass muster, the federal government would give the green light. the state would get more flexibility it would get the combined into one funding stream up to 11 different programs come things like food stamp, housing assistance, child care, tax welfare. this new simplified stream of funding would become the opportunity grant and it would be budget neutral. the state would get the same amount of money as they would under current law, not a penny
less. in effect the state would say give us some space and we can figure this out. the federal government would say go to it, on four conditions. first, you have to spend his money on people in need. you can't take his money and put on roads or bridges, no funny business. second, every person who can work should work. third, you've got to get people basic choices. the state welfare agency can't be the only game in town. people must have at least one other option whether it's a nonprofit, a for-profit or what have you. fourth, you've got to test the results. the federal government and the state must agree on a neutral third party to keep track of progress. that's the deal. if approved a state could use that money to expand state programs and partner with local service providers. in other words, families in need would have a choice. they wouldn't just be a federal agency or state agency. instead they could choose from a
list of certified providers. we're talking nonprofits like catholic charities, for-profits like america works commerce and community groups that are unique to your neighborhood. these groups would work with people one on one. and provide a personalized aid for case management. think of it this way. right now you've got to go to a bunch of different offices to enroll in a bunch of different programs. each with all the different rules. under the opportunity grant you can go to one office and you could work with one person for all of your needs. that person what you financial assistance and would also act as personal resource. maybe you need counselincounselin g. maybe you come from a broken family and you need a network of support. the point is, you would work together to get you from where you are to where you want to be. let's take one example. let's call her entry. she's 24, she has two kids. they are two and four years old.
her husband left the family six months ago. she does know how to contact him. andrea graduate from high school but her only work if there's was a two-year stint in rita. she advocates now live with her parents in a two-bedroom mobile home. her parents can supporter over the long haul. she's been trying to find work for the last five months. she doesn't have a car. she can't afford child care, and her dream is ultimately one day to become a teacher. here's how it would work under this plan. andrea would go to a local service provider, sit down with a case manager and develop an opportunity plan. that plan would pin point her strengths, or opportunities for growth, her short, medium and long-term goals. the two of them would sign a contract. andrea would meet specific benchmarks for success. she would establish a timeline for meeting them. consequences for missing them
and rewards for exceeding the. andrea short-term goal is to find a job, but our long-term goal is to find the right job, become a teacher. so she might find a job in retail to pay the bills. meanwhile, her case manager would help pay for transportation and childcare so that she could take classes at night. overtime, andrea to go to school, get her certification and find a teaching job. the point is with someone involved and there to help coordinate her age, andrea was not just a job, she would start a career. and all this time a neutral third party would keep tabs on each provider and their success rate. it would look at the key metrics agreed to by the state and the federal government. how many people are finding jobs? how money people are getting off of assistance? common people are moving out of poverty, and so on. any provider who came up short, they wouldn't be able to present they -- to just any further. at the end of the program we would pool the results and go
from there. in short, we are reconsidering the federal government's role. no longer would the federal government try to supplant our local committees, but tried to support them. in my view, the federal government is the rearguard but it protects the supply line. it's the people on the ground who are the fan guard. they fight poverty on the front lines. they have to leave in this effort, and washington should follow their lead. in that spirit i want to throw my support behind a number of ideas that i think a lot of good colleagues, both on the left and the right, have been supporting and house and the senate. they all expand opportunity by taking decision-making away from washington and bring more accountability to government at all levels. first, we should make sure that in this country it always pays to work. i would do that by increasing the earned income tax credit for childless workers.
after reviewing the federal government's role in all of this space, this is one of programs that has really shown results. it encourages people to work by increasing their rewards for work. and we all know that the more people that we have in the workforce, the more opportunity we have in this country. so i would roughly double the maximum credit for childless workers to $1000 of that would lower the minimum eligibility from 25 to 21 years old. this is summer to what the president has proposed, but with one big difference. i wouldn't raise taxes. i would pay for by eliminating ineffective programs and corporate welfare, like subsidies to energy companies. my thinking basically is stop the programs that don't work and support the programs that do. second, we need to expand access in education. we need to give students more options. in other words, we need accreditation reform. sounds dry but it has a huge difference.
this is summer to what my friend, senator mike lee of utah, and congressman ron desantis from florida propose. we need to bring competition in. let other schools in on the action. we need to keep reform and job training programs. if employers can design their own curriculum, then workers will know just what skills they need. third, we need commonsense criminal justice reform. we need to give people the opportunity to earn a second chance in this country. luckily, my colleagues have done a lot of good work on this front. senator mica, congressman ronald labrador and bobby scott have introduced a very good piece of legislation, reform process and guidelines but it would give judges more discretion with low risk nonviolent offenders. all we are saying is that it had to give the maximum sentence every time. there's no reason to lock anyone up longer than necessary. and we also have to tackle
recidivism. about half of our ex-cons are we incarcerate it within three years of release. think about that. but we know there are programs that work, they get people out of his life of crime. that's why congressman jason chavez and bobby scott have introduced the public safety enhancement act. low risk nonviolent offenders exchange time in prison as long as they can complete the program with a proven track but. is the point. nonviolent low-risk offenders, don't lock them up and throw away the key. get them in counseling, get it in training, help them we join and contribute to our society. treachery, great focus. finally -- carl orf, great focus. a lot of families are going to get ahead but washington is simply getting in the way. so i would pose, proposed a very
simple rule for future regulations. if you are a federal agency and you want a regulation that would unduly burdened low income families, you've got to go to congress. if they want it to have to fight for it and have to do so on the record. it's your government and you deserve a voice and a vote. look, all of these are good ideas. they are just the start. what we are releasing -- releasing today were calling a discussion draft because this is meant to start a discussion. we want to do for people. we want people to send us their ideas. we want constructive feedback. so please, e-mail us at expanding opportunity. nobody asked me what party i belong to. they welcome anybody who was there who is willing to listen and learn. that should be our approach in
washington. enough with the politics. let's talk solutions because this really isn't a republican or democratic issue. it's an american issue. a matter of principle. we need to build a society where hard work is rewarded and every american has the opportunity to succeed regardless of birthplace or background. and to do that and what has got to get involved the evidence cut to fall -- poll in same direction. we can build a healthy economy, we can fix this and get this done and that's what a good people of the nation are expecting of us. that's what they deserve. take do very much look forward to the conversation. [applause]
>> we're going to turn the podium over now virtually to robert doar, poverty studies at aei, has joined us only in the past six months, is expanding aei's poverty focused greatly and were delighted to have him host this next. >> thanks, or the but as congressman ryan, but the discussion begin. we have an outstanding panel today of experts in the field who are well-known to many of the audience saw keep the introductions very short. starting from ie immediate left is ron haskins is a senior fellow and economics study program and codirector of us in on children's and families at the brookings institution but is also senior consultant in baltimore. from february to december of 2002 he was the senior advisor to the president for welfare policy at the white house. he is well-known, extremely well-respected and we're very honored to have you with us here today. next is stuart butler, a
distinguished fellow and director of the center for policy innovation a division of heritage foundation charged with designing innovative solutions to some of america's toughest jobs. before taking the helm at cbi in august 2010, the guided heritage but for -- domestic was research from us 30 years as vice president for domestic and economic policy. stuart, we're glad you're here as well. finally, bob woodson on the far left of founder and president of the center for neighborhood enterprise. [inaudible] >> bob social activism dates back to the 1960s when he develop and coordinate national and local community development programs. during the 1970s he directed the national urban league's administration of justice division. later he served as a resident fellow at aei and he's an alumni. welcome back, bob. we are very honored to have the. to start discussion we will have ron go first, then stuart and
bob and congressman ryan will respond and then i will ask a question and we will go to the audience. go ahead. >> let me make four points. first, it's a sweeping proposal. this is worth the of the think tank. it's full of references to social science, thing she justified or explained. it's a spectacular document and i would emphasize sweeping. opportunity grants, eitc for childless workers, education at all levels, criminal sentencing and other pressure reforms, rig it for reform and program evaluation. i've not seen anything like this for many years introduced in congress. second point, results driven research. if you need to say, now would be the time because people don't pay much attention to this but i'm telling u is one of most important things going on in the country. we are at last learning that a programs don't work and that they can be evaluated and you can use the evaluation to improve them. the bush administration which you joined us. obama is even bigger and so this
creates a real possibility for bipartisanship and a focus on results, which we should do in all other programs. third, opportunity grants. by far the most controversial part of this and the part i hope doesn't get all the attention but i'm afraid it might because it's the part that's the most controversial. it gives flexibility authority as paul explain and help as bob woodson will emphasize, what i like most about this, most people do, it's given flexible to states which is something the democrats traditionally have been very worried about. this is a way to get money to the local level and the platoons of society, civil society can benefit from some of the money. you have to stop the. i've heard many people who are so sue with bob say the same thing but for the opportunity
grants are really crucial. if you were a republican and you believed opportunity grants and flexibility and block grants on way to go, you could not improve on paul's proposal. why? because it's not natural but it's not changing food stamps and tanf and so forth. they remain in place but seven states, some number of states will affect the experience and we will find out if these ideas really put out and get that money does get down to the local of the. that is exactly the way to go about it and it's a compromise right from the beginning. finally, the politics of the situation that we are in the. first, i hope paul will excuse me for observing that almost everything in this proposal is possible for bipartisanship. is really a bipartisan proposal from the very beginning. if the media focuses on the controversy, i think that huge mistake. they're missing the story. there are very few republicans would have the courage especially in the situation we now face to introduce such a bipartisan reasonable proposal.
this raises the question, second question is about republicans about politics, and that is if they will have the sense to support this. in 1996 republicans reformed welfare reform in a way that it never been done before and it was because they were united. the republicans in the house, and the senate were fights behind the scenes, but publicly everything was agreed upon and eventually the president agreed with us and the majority of democrats on the hill voted for but if we take the senate and the senate introduces something along these lines in both house and senate pass it, we can put something on the president's desk that would become law. [inaudible] [laughter] >> already partisanship. come on. [laughter] >> stuart. >> i think our late and mutual friend, jack kemp, would call this an audacious proposal. it's a bold, it's a shakeup
thinking. it has the potential of bipartisanship and it raises lots of questions that have to be discussed and considered. and 10 is turning this into a major proposal. so i'm very supportive of this approach. and i welcome the congressman for putting it forward. i think if you look at some of the elements, i want to raise some issues and some questions about the proposals while supporting very much servant opportunity grant added to it is critical if you're going to see innovative public policy in this country to give incentive to states and to localities and to non-government organizations to try ideas, to be innovative and to learn from them. that's the heart of the opportunity grant proposal. i think it's important, somebody that's been very much devoted to the idea of federalism myself for many, many years, not to be romantic about states. is the polls isn't romantic
about states. it recognizes that you got to somehow in some cases push innovation as well as give incentives for innovation. so the conditions that paul ryan mentioned in his remarks are very, very important. it is critical that as part of the opportunity grant idea that work requirements are core elements of that approach. we have work requirements to some degree in the system right now. they were never as widely placed into the law as they should in 1996 but they should be extended, will be extended by this proposal. it's very important to go beyond the state bureaucracies, as i'm sure, bob, you found when you went around the country. very often local organizations very innovative groups are held back by the frustrations of rules and regulations and bureaucrats. this proposal to rex the states if they want to get the green light to show been very clear way how they're going to reach past the bureaucracy and enable these organizations to play a
much greater role. it's also critically important to have evaluation as the congressman said. we that somebody politics in this country that sound good, sometimes look good but actually do nothing or very little. so building in systematic evaluation's is absolutely essential to see if innovations are true, and to enable the key elements to be exported as a. it's very important to states to have some financial skin in the game. i'm less sure that the fewer opportunity grant has enough to encourage states to have skin in the game and to see the kind of financial rewards they can reach. the 1996 legislation a states very powerful financial incentives to get people out of welfare and into independent work. i don't see that in this, and i think that's an element that has to be looked at more carefully. in terms of the earned income tax credit, it is clearly better to get people to work and to be
able to get higher take-home earnings and increase the minimum wage which may often cut jobs for people who are very low skilled and just starting from school. it's much more targeted. but, of course, there are design issues to get this right. these will have to be part of the conversation that follows this proposal. one of the issues is fraud. we have a lot of fraud in the eitc currently. and so in tandem we're expanding it, it's important to look at better way to rooting out that fraud. it's also very important to look at perverse incentives that can occur. if a young man has a larger eitc and is working today and under this proposal, then marries a woman who is also obtaining eitc, you can have a situation of every strong marriage penalty. if that tops out and if it goes above the total amount under the
eitc role, you could find financial penalties for getting married. if we undermine marriage that would be a terrible thing as result of this proposal and, therefore, think when you look at the design stage it's important to look at those incentives as well as potentially perverse incentives of discouraging year-round work. it's increasing eitc, we may see people not working the full year. so it's very important to look at the design changes that will encourage your long work. i think the work requirement in combination with eitc would be the right way to do that. thirdly, in the accreditation, i echo what you said, congressman, that if you look at what is necessary to enable people to get the skills, command real wages, good wages in the workforce, in getting college or college equivalent is google. today with enormous financial barriers about doing that.
i think the way we will see a solution to the problem is dramatic reduction in the cost of tuition. you now have college for america, part of the university offering $10,000 degrees. all of these highly innovative approaches, delivering low-cost but effective higher education, accreditation. accreditation protects the existing provider it protects the large expensive universities. and you're right, tentatively and others have put forward proposals that would allow states and other institutions to credential courses and credit institution. that is an absolute essential feature of this proposal. ..